Master_Shake

Right. Simply wanting to know why people are certain places is sticking one's nose into someone else's business. I'm not suggesting calling the police when you don't feel safe is wrong, I'm suggesting that this guy's sense of fear is misplaced.

Ok, but what about when someone MAY be tresspassing, when you don't know if the guy's tresspassing. That's what this story was about.

What argument did I make up? Your argument appears to be that by virtue of being a stranger the man is suspicious and you need to protect yourself. If that's the case, then the only way to protect yourself is to lock yourself in a castle because there are a lot of strangers out there. That's not a straw man.

You're right, he said he wouldn't have just said "Ho hum..." For some crazy reason I thought that meant he would therefore get involved in the situation and call the cops, just like he did in this case. I was obviously way out of line.

Wow, you really don't feel safe do you? I had no idea you lived in an area with such a high crime rate.

Perhaps I wasn't clear earlier, but it wasn't just his calling the police that I disagreed with, it was his decision to get involved at all (that he chose to do so through the police is his right I suppose). Based on the evidence he described, I do not see how a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that the person was engaged in nefarious activities. But then I see people I don't know all the time, and I don't live in a perfectly controlled, temperature-regulated, gated community of white folks.

As do I, but saying: "You may not have a right to spend time in another person's property, but I don't know so I'm going to call the police," I don't support.

I don't think it's overly broad to say that the purpose is punishment. Sure, there may be a few elements of rehabilitation, but the purpose (again, from my experience and the experiences I see) is punishment.

Where do you live that the criminal justice system works so well? I can't believe you live in America, or if you do, you must be rich. No poor person who's had trouble with the law that I've ever met could make those same claims with a straight face.

Do you pay off the cops so that they don't charge you for possession of a small amount of marijuana or possession of paraphenalia? How do you do it?

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

ShaniFaye

I wasnt making judgement on your comment, just trying to clarify it

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Master_Shake

But potential is such a meaningless term. There's always the potential for criminal activity. I think you should adhere to the same standards the cops are supposed to, reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Sure, bring out the old children have to be protected argument. Children should not dictate the limits of adult activity. You want to protect them then keep them indoors. People having sex, what a terrible thing to see.

Sure, send them my way. It would be nice to have a few hookers in the neighborhood so I don't have to travel far away to get laid.

C'mon, they're allowed to park their cars. Why do you object to people doing it in cars?

!?!?! If I have to step around it it's clearly my business. If the dog shits on my neighbor's yard, and I don't know if the dog is his or not or if the dog has permission to shit there, THEN it's none of my business.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

StanT

Neighborhood watch is just the opposite, neighbors looking out for each other in an organized fashion, no taxes involved. Just a group of neighbors that live in the sticks and have good knowledge of who lives here and who does not. No control or moderation involved.

Six months after I moved in here, a decapitated body was dumped in the canyon that I use to commute. Welcome to Boulder County. A year later a woman was gang raped and dumped a few miles from my home. Jon Benet Ramsey was murdered the year before I moved here.

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend that crime doesn't exist. You can look at the world through rose colored glasses and assume that everyone's motives are pure. Or you can look at suspicious activity and report it as such.

Yakk

A stranger in your enclosed neighbourhood is worth iquiring about. This is true of a small town or an apartment building.

In this case, the stranger was hiding in a small dark room with one entrance and exit.

[quote="Master_Shake"]You attacked a position I did not hold, and claimed it as a victory. You just did it again, right above me. It's a straw man attack.

If A AND B imply C, where A is "slightest inkling of danger" and C is "call the cops", it does not mean that "slightest inlking of danger" implies "call the cops".

You will note that the first impulse was to go ask the guy what he was up to. Only when convinced (by his girlfriend) that this might not be safe did he call the police.

No, I don't live in an area with a high crime rate. Once again, you ignore the massive number of qualifications I put on my statement.

I do feel safe.

I don't feel all that safe if I'm in a dark alley between two houses with nobody nearby to hear me shout, in an area where I know everyone, and a stranger approaches me, while living in an armed society. This would be an example of a case that satisfies the list of qualifications I made on my statement.

When I qualify statements, I do it for a reason, usually. Don't ignore the qualifications please.

He was right -- the person was up to mildly nefarious activities (tresspassing).

At the very least, people who spend large amounts of time near your home and family should be interacted with.

He was staying on someone else's property (the storage room) without permission. When does it move from 'spend time' to 'live'?

Then you should study up on regimes that have their justice truely based on punishment.

My location is visible on the left. This would also be true in the U.K., as an aside -- I was under the impression that the police there have stopped bothering to prosecute possession of small amounts of MJ.

I disagree. The government has special rights and obligations and restrictions. We lack those powers and rights. We also lack some of it's obligations and restrictions.

Individuals are, should and will be more free that governments in many situations.

Parents want to protect children. If parents can arrange for communities where their children are adequitly protected, that is ok with me.

You like living near prostitutes. More power to you, live in an area that welcomes prostitutes.

All it takes for shit to accumulate is for neighbours to do nothing. ;-)

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Carno

What I meant was that being a guy I'm not as fearful of rape or being attacked as a woman would be. I guess I wrongly assumed people could make the connection. But still, I don't see how my edit included a gender slur..... Obviously I was trying to be careful so that anyone would know that I was not trying to bash women, so why would you think that my edit was bashing women? It just doesn't make sense to me.

I wasn't trying to attack anyone or cause hard feelings, but sometimes when I see a good debate going and I want to add things, I get a little too eager. Sorry if it seemed I was angry or trying to slight anyone

Master_Shake

I disagree. Strangers are just people you don't know. If you don't have some real evidence that the person is engaged in illegal activities (or about to be engaged in illegal activities) then leave the person alone.

Hiding? There was no allegation that the person was hiding. Now you're making stuf up. A stranger was in a small dark room. That's hardly something to call the cops about.

You didn't answer the question. You claimed that "if someone is tresspassing for extended periods of time, I'd call the police" I asked you if someone might be tresspassing (might meaning YOU DON'T KNOW IF HE'S TRESSPASSING) would you call the police. That's a different question, and it's relevant here because the original poster did not know that the guy was tresspassing, he only though he might be tresspassing.

So what is your position? Do you or do you not fear strangers?

What is B here? You're just making stuff up. I think it's clear that when this guy has the slightest inkling of danger he won't sit around saying "Ho-Hum." I think that implies he would get involved. Clearly he gets involved by calling the police (because he did so). His first impulse is irrelevant, only what he did.

Ok, but that hypothetical is completely unrelated to the situation at hand. The guy here wasn't in a dark alley and the stranger never approached him. Again you're just making stuff up.

THAT HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED, and even if he's right; using his slightest inkling standard would certainly get a lot of people involved with the cops for no reason.

Unless they don't want to be interacted with. Some people just want to be left alone, so don't bother them.

I don't know what this is referring to. What I was trying to get across is that the person's fear of strangers is wildly inappropriate.

Sure thing professor.

I can't speak for California or Washington, but not here in Pennsylvania.

Do you disagree with the slightest inkling standard? If so, what standard do you suggest?

Not for very long if everybody starts calling the cops based on the slightest inkling of danger.

It's not ok with me when they infringe my rights to protect their children. Prostitution may be illegal, so it's not the best example, but adult bookstores and strip clubs are not illegal, and yet NYC and parental groups all over the country do everything in their power to destroy them.

I guess I just value freedom more than lying to children.

My job kind of prohibits me from moving to Nevada, and there really aren't any areas in PA that do so.

All it takes for cops to shoot people is for neighbours to overreact.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

Master_Shake

Who's pretending crime doesn't exist? I'm suggesting that there's enough crime out there without having to invent more.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

kurty[B]

[QUOTE=Master_Shake]I think it's clear that when this guy has the slightest inkling of danger he won't sit around saying "Ho-Hum." I think that implies he would get involved. Clearly he gets involved by calling the police (because he did so). His first impulse is irrelevant, only what he did.[\QUOTE]

Calling the police was the last option I looked at. Ignoring the situation I left as NOT an option, because the person was trespassing.


[QUOTE=Master_Shake]The guy here wasn't in a dark alley and the stranger never approached him. Again you're just making stuff up.[\QUOTE]

Umm, it was a dark alley, and the storage unit is within four feet of where multiple cars are parked.


[QUOTE=Master_Shake]THAT HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED, and even if he's right; using his slightest inkling standard would certainly get a lot of people involved with the cops for no reason.[\QUOTE]

I knew there were not any residents in the apartment that the storage unit belonged to, and knew due to state laws, and the way the management company is run that they would not rent a storage unit on that property for the purpose of someone's place to sleep. Hence I deducted that the person in there was trespassing.


As a teenager two of my friends were shotgunned down and killed on the street by a 16 and 17 year old who just drove up, shot them and drove off, in the evening. Three years later, another friend was shot in the face after leaving a night club. And two years ago another had two strangers enter his house (ended up being people hired by his girlfriend), and stab him to death, rip out the carpet to get rid of any blood left at the scene, stuffed his body in a refrigerator and dumped it at a trash dump 40 miles north of here. So, I don't particularly trust strangers, especially if they can't look me in the eyes and say "hi" at least.



__________
ack, I don't know what happened with the Quote tags?

Master_Shake

Again, I'm not trying to suggest you shouldn't have called the police if you felt you were in danger. When people fear for themselves they have the right to call the cops. I generally wouldn't call the cops because they're usually more trouble than their worth. But what I'm suggesting here is that you were afraid for your life in a situation that a reasonable person should not have been afraid in. That your irrational fear resulted in a call to the police is regrettable, but not my main objection to your actions. That you got involved in the situation at all is my objection.

I do not think that a person should get involved in a situation regarding other people when:
a) the suspicion of criminal activity is not based on at least reasonable suspicion or probable cause
b) that the alleged criminal activity is not violent or likely to harm others
c) you haven't been asked to be involved.

I think that sums it up, but I reserve the right to add more elements if necessary.

You are free to disagree. Obviously you do because you acted when I would not have. As I said originally, I hope karma (or whatever) doesn't catch up to you and you're not harrased for someone else's irrational fear.

By "the guy" I meant the "tresspasser" was in a dark alley, not you. You were in your apartment, which I assume was properly lit.

You don't have to trust them, no one's asking you to hand over your car keys to this person. But that doesn't mean you have to get involved in the situation.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

kurty[B]

That's fine, those are your requirements not mine. And my girlfriend was not in the reasonably lit apartment, because she was smoking a cigarette and I don't allow smoking inside my apartment. She was sitting on the steps that lead to the dark alley when she saw such person come walking down it, and enter the storage unit facing the dark alley.

If we had been in my well lit apartment we never would have seen or heard this person, because he was rather quiet about his entrance into the storage unit. Hence, the benefit of smoking (which you would refer to as not so, because it ended up in my calling the police to assess the situation). And, if kharma has it's way and I end up with cops knocking on my door and a dog there to greet me, well, if I feel it was unjustified after the BS report is filed and courtdates are set I will pursue the legal action necessary to hopefully reveal such injustice. In the meantime, I'll sleep comfortably tonight knowing that there's no one in the storage shed next to mine.

Yakk

I said inqiuiring (well, misseplled it). When you expect to know everyone and someone new shows up, inquiring about them is pretty justified.

Hidden from plain view. Hiding does have negative connotations, my apologies.

Oh, my bad -- I misread you. I thought you where putting forward the claim that "even if the was tresspassing, it wasn't justified", and the 'MAY' was your 'for the sake of arguement, lets assume he was tresspassing'.

On review, I misread it.

In this case, the original poster had a reasonable suspicion that the person could be tresspassing. "He isn't the landlord" and "the apartment which owns that storage unit is unoccupied" and "the person is staying inside a 3 by 4 foot room" together amount to reasonable suspision.

Fear isn't a binary condition. I fear government power. I fear cars. I fear electricity. And yes, I fear people who I am not familiar with.

In this case, I'm probably using 'fear' in a broader sense than you. 'Respect the possibility of danger from' perhaps?

As I have said, a random stranger is almost certainly an honest, honourable person. A stranger who self-selects for interaction with you is far less likely to be such.

He called the police because of mitigating circumstances. The B in this case was 'his girlfriend was worried about interacting with a stranger acting strangely in a strange situation'. He would have preferred to talk to the person.

This does not mean that the response to every 'inlking of danger' would be to call the police.

[quote="Master_Shake"]Ok, but that hypothetical is completely unrelated to the situation at hand. The guy here wasn't in a dark alley and the stranger never approached him. Again you're just making stuff up.

I was responding to your attack:
not to the situation at hand. I made a highly qualified global statement, and you interprited it by ignoring the qualifications, as far as I can tell.

In this case, it was a storage area. I would guess it would be accessable to/from the outside, with few witnesses nearby. I could see his girlfriend's fear at him approaching and confronting a stranger in a storage unit being justified.

I thought it had -- I probably misread.

In this case, they had more than the slightest inkling.

An interaction that is rebuffed is still an interaction. And I could see people who are protective of their children being hostile to nearby, standoffish, people.

I said that "people not living in your property is a valid property right". You said "people spending time in your property is not a valid property right". I asked where the line you drew between the two was, based off your assumed acceptance of my statement.

Strangers in areas where you have a pretty reasonable expectation to know everyone, acting in ways that you wouldn't expect someone who was a stranger to do, is different than 'strangers'.

/shrug. One of the many reasons I don't live in Pennsylvania.

I agree that someone not 'minding their own business' at the 'slightest inkling of danger' to their children isn't wrong.

I don't agree with the caracature of the position you put forward, read:
which you keep repeating, and not justifying, and I continue to object to.

Communities making local (not global) restrictions on commercial activity seems reasonable to me. I'm for legal prostitution. I am also for people being able to form communities where prostitution, adult bookstores, and strip clubs are locally disallowed.

People should have the freedom to live in a restricted environment, or in an unrestricted environment.

Civilization relies on people getting involved with each other's lives. Because there are negative and positive externalities to every move you make, your acts are not just your own business.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

The_wall

Well no offense to anyone but a lot of you seem a little paranoid. That whole neighborhood watch mentality makes me laugh to be honest, when I drive down one of those neighborhoods all the paranoid moms and dads look out the window, maybe hoping they recognize my car. They live in the most protected part of the town yet they are still afraid of something. Maybe its just me and the low crime area I live in though, who knows.

Hell my parents house was broken into once when I was very young, we had a lot of things stolen, yet we still don't lock our doors. We even had a drug dealer who was being chased by the cops slam into my moms car parked in our driveway, the guy then ran and and the cops chase him through our back yard, but I still feel extremely safe living here.

__________________
"We do what we like and we like what we do!"~andrew Wk

Procrastinate now, don't put off to the last minute.

Master_Shake

Obviously we live in very different areas. People I don't know walking around is not odd to me. I suppose if you live in a well-guarded, homogenous subruban happy land then this may be appropriate action. I don't live in such an area, and if this is how you folk behave, constantly getting involved in each other's business, then I have no desire to live there. Let's just respect that we can live in different places.


Right, but his response to every inkling of danger is to get involved. I follow a higher standard. I respect people's privacy enough not to get involved unless I have some reasonable evidence to believe someone is engaged in dangerous activity. Anything else is not my business.

I suppose I'm following the "golden rule" of involvement here. I would prefer it if people left me alone in such situations and respect my privacy. In return, I do the same. Clearly you have less respect for the privacy of others. As long as you are willing to accept similar restrictions on your own privacy then you are not being hypocritical and I suppose there's nothing else to say.

Only to a very limited extent. I think it's more accurate to say that control relies on getting involved with each other's lives. So long as my possible harmful actions are controlled (murder, rape, assault, etc) then nothing else concerns other people. Anyone who claims it does is just a busybody.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

Yakk

When is a qualifier. When X, Y is an if-then statement. It isn't an assertion of my reality nor my current experience.

When (you expect to know everyone) and (someone new shows up), then (inquiring about them is pretty justified).

It's a conditional statement.

In this case, it appears that the original poster would expect to know someone poking around in that storage unit.

You aren't caring for the safety and life of someone whose safety you value 100 times more than your own. In his house he has a treasure worth more than gold or diamonds, and he doesn't want any thing to happen to them.

Harm is not restricted to murder, rape and assault. Harm extends over broad spectrums, from the small to the large.

Litter, noise, property damage, property values, security, snow on sidewalks. Parking, pollution, economic impact, courtisy, friendliness, belonging.

Not everyone views alienation from other people as the highest virtue.

People want to live in communities that make them happy. As such, they can, should and will make their communities better for themselves and others. You may find every social interaction an act of slavery, power and control, but there is more to life than that for most people.

And we have you outnumbered, outgunned, outpositioned, and outpowered. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Master_Shake

I agree only in some circumstances. If that person is on your property, or coming at you, or at a party you're attending, then you are justified.

However, I do not feel you are justified in getting involved in someone else's situation when the person is on another's property, does not present a dangerous situation (i.e. he's not waving a gun around) and you don't have the complete facts.

I see, so the safety of his girlfriend trumps all privacy rights? She's just another human being. How is she worth 100 times his life? Is it because she's a woman? Are all women worth 100 times more than men? That may be true, but I'd just like to make that clear.

Agreed. And when someone is a) doing any of these things to his property (not his neighbour's property, over which he has no property rights), or b) he is asked to get involved and protect someone else's property then he's justified in getting involved.

Getting involved in a non-dangerous situation without all the facts by violating another's privacy rights (especially calling the police, presence of girlfriend does not justify calling the cops when no danger is apparent) is not justified.

I completely understand. If you want to live in a highly controlled police state with curfews then by all means, do so. But can't you respect that some of us don't view the invasion of privacy rights in the name of protection as the highest virtue?

I don't doubt that's true. And make no mistake I will offer no real resistance. I'm not a hero who wants to become a martyr.

I may obey your laws out of fear, but I will not like it.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

sapiens

You keep setting up straw man versions of the oppositions arguments. I'm not sure that the alternative to ignoring strangers in a dark alley is living in a police state. I'm also not sure that I would characterize the whole situation as an "invasion of privacy rights in the name of protection." Nor does it seems that anyone considers it "the highest virtue." If I'm understanding correctly, no one has advocated a complete suspension of privacy rights, just a suspension of privacy rights when you are committing a crime in public.

Yakk

*laugh*, can you please stop the hyperbole? You take my statement, and extend it to a universal exagerrated one.

"trumps all privacy rights" -- when did I say this? Oh wait, you made it up.

I was describing why you didn't care about levels of danger that other people would care about. It's called empathy, understanding where people are coming from.

I would agree with your absolute statement if things that happened on my neighbour's property had no effect on what happens on my property.

However, I live in a universe with a very different topology. As such, I would hold your universal statement is overly strong and counterproductive.

If a police officer saw what that person saw, and knew what that person knew, that police officer would have been justified asking what the that person was doing. There was reasonable suspiscion of a criminal act going on. If someone agrees with a law, and sees reason to have reasonable suspiscion of a criminal act going on, they are justified in reporting this suspiscion to the police.

It seems to be your position that a criminal act being perputrated on a 3rd party is not your business. Is this accurate?

I have no wish to live in a society with curfews, dispite your implied allegations to the contrary. Do you not understand that my constant use of qualifications has meaning? That the world has more than two colours? You seem to ignore every single qualification I ever use.

Sure, I do not consider 'the invasion of privacy rights in the name of protection as the highest virtue' to be true. It's a completely ludicrous statement, constructed out of absolutes, which nobody in the thread has ever put forward.

Why did you even ask that question?

Edit: changed "give a shit" to "care". My use of profanity hid the point I was attempting to make.
Edit: Removed a use of "god damn" as an adjective
Edit: Removed "in the hell" as an adjective

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Master_Shake

I only respond in kind. I'm not the one valuing one person's safety 100 times more than another.

You didn't use that phrase but you seem to support him valuing his girlfriend's safety in situations that present no danger over this guy's privacy rights. Is that an incorrect statement?

Understanding where he's coming from doesn't make his fear reasonable. I wouldn't want to be arrested by the cops because he's unreasonably afraid for his girlfriend's safety.

I use universal statements because I'm trying to find out what your position is. It appears to be very situational and totally inapplicable to other circumstances. Certainly there should always be some flexibilty in one's beliefs, but having general rules we can agree on is not unreasonable.

Maybe in Canada but probably not here in the states. There was no evidence of an illegal act there. Not recognizing someone does not supply reasonable suspicion or probable cause. A police officer may not enter private property to search or arrest without probable cause, therefore a police officer would not have been justified if he stumbled on this situation on his own.

Partly. Let me be very clear here. I believe this is the most important part of this thread. Please respond to this section (if you respond to anything) and be specific about your disagreement.

My contention: A possible non-violent criminal act committed on another's property is not your business.

I believe that is the best description of the situation the original poster found himself in.

1. Possible: The "criminal act" was not confirmed. The poster did not know if the guy had legal access to the property. Not recognizing someone does not mean the guy didn't have legal access.

2. Non-violent: The guy was not breaking anything, waving a weapon or disturbing the peace.

3. Another's property: The original poster has no property rights in the management company's property.

When those three elements are present, as I believe they were in this case, a person should mind his/her own business.

Let's try to make this as simple as possible. If you disagree with my characterization of the incident, please specify. If you disagree with my conclusion, please be specific.

Do you not understand my constant use of sarcasm has meaning?

That was in response to your ridiculous statement that I never put forward:

Right, except that the poster didn't know the guy was committing a crime, and it was happening on private property. Should privacy rights when someone may or may not be committing a crime on private property be suspended?

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

la petite moi

My exact thought.

Painted

So..Anyways.......................

....

....

Did you ever find out what the guy was doing there?

__________________
I came across a nice rack at the department store

Yakk

The police officer knows the landlord. He also knows that the apartment associated with the storage unit isn't being rented. And someone walks up to that storage unit (3 by 4), enters it, closes the door behind him.

That police officer isn't justifed knocking on the door, or saying 'hey, what are you up to?'

I personally restrict "violent" to be "causing physical harm to a person", and don't include property crimes, but that's just my personal nomenclaiture.

And I would disagree. If I saw someone shoplifting, I would mention it. If I saw someone sleeping under a neighbours porch, I would mention it.

In the case in question, it wasn't a matter of merely not recognizing someone. The wierd behaviour (entering a 3x4 room and closing the door behind you for extended periods of time), and the fact that the apartment associated with the locker wasn't owned, go above and beyond that bit of evidence.

No, I don't understand why you are constantly being sarcastic. Enlighten me.

Point. That was my bad.

I would disagree with your statement 'no danger'. 'Little danger' I'd agree with.

And no, I don't think people have much privacy in the acts which they do outside of a domicile and in full view of a street or other public/shared area.

First, I hold myself to different standards than I do others. A bunch of my moral beliefs are. as far as I can tell, arbitrary, and others disagreeing with them or having different priorities is ok with me.

Second, almost every one of your statements are very universal and unqualified -- I find them ridiculous. There are tradeoffs in everything, and an ethical system that says 'meh' to an entire range of choices is both honest and valid. I would hold that every interesting ethical system will have to throw up it's hands at some point.

What happens to your neighbours, and in your neighbourhood, has ramifications. I respect the fact that people do want to live in communities with less anonymity and more safety. Others prefer more anonymity and less safety. Hopefully people will self-select to live in a community that shares their values.

Good point! What was that guy up to?

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

kid astronaut

man i kinda agreed with master_shake until he kept talking

kurty[B]

Sorry, for not updating for a while.

I talked with management of the property today. They did not say what he was up to, but that he did have a backpack filled with spray paint. They also are giving me next month's rent free.

Cynthetiq

nice to hear that .....

a good deed gets rewarded...

personally I do not believe in the method that Master Shake has demonstrated here.

I live in a dense community, no one can know everyone where I live, but everyone is mindful of troublemakers.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Master_Shake

I'm glad you got something for your trouble.

Let's just hope that if anyone ever rats you out that he/she gets something equally valuable.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.